[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
updated app schemas?
Hi all.
I just upgraded from 2.0 to 2.1 and, as initially suspected, I have fallen prey to the inheritance chain issues. Luckily, I seem to have an ok grip on this stuff - the whole reason for upgrading was to confirm my suspicions and prove a few related guesses 
Anyway, what I'm wondering now is this: Have the different application vendors begun overhauling their (improperly created?) schemas so that they will play nice with the standard schemas and the stricter schema checking of 2.1 - or is this left as an exercise for the user? Any pointers to *published* schemas would be helpful. I prefer them over rolling my own. At least then there's a chance someone *else* is using them as well.
For example, officePerson, evolutionPerson, and zillaPerson are all defined as STRUCTURAL, which I can't fathom being necessary, but what's worse is that they're also all derived from inetOrgPerson!
Maybe I'm missing a rule or two and Kurt can help out here, but I thought that I read that when you define an object - zillaPerson for example - and you subclass an existing object - in this case inetOrgPerson - the new objectclass must be of the same type (STRUCTURAL, ABSTRACT or AUXILIARY) as its parent. Is this true? If so, there's much work ahead for those out there supporting multiple email clients, posixAccounts, samba, sendmail and other 'stuff'.
Assuming a typical 'ou=People' entry in OpenLDAP 2.0 created with this goal of supporting everything, what I gather then is that we need to gather up all the objectclasses which claim to be STRUCTURAL and have the same SUP, pick ONE of them, and then simply continue the chain? So I can keep evolutionPerson the way it is, and then change officePerson and zillaPerson to follow the chain (in fact, they probably could be AUX anyway, no?).
Am I on the right track here?